|
|
|
|
|
by grumpy-de-sre
770 days ago
|
|
Like everything in the health world it's a spectrum isn't it. Where you draw the cutoff for something being a disorder and needing intervention is super subjective. Probably something where too much talk doesn't necessarily help, as it seems to dilute that threshold over time. I guess that's just it, it's a spectrum and even "normal" people can be somewhere on it. And decisions about diagnosis or labeling etc should be taken based on degree of impairment to functioning. Saying that, we really do want to make kids aware of mental health issues (the same as health in general). I really could have benefited from an education about OCD, as it took me more than ten years to understand why I struggled so much. |
|
If we take OCD as an example, there's clearly a huge range from 'I like the TV volume to be set to an even number' through to massive impairments to functioning to the point it's impossible to hold down a job, or that it's damaging your personal relationships.
I am a bit less comfortable with saying that it's "super subjective" where you draw the cutoff though. I agree there's some subjectivity there, but the diagnostic cutoff (per DSM-V) is quite clearly defined, and leaves relatively little room for subjective interpretation: "The obsessions or compulsions are time-consuming (e.g. - take more than 1 hour per day) or cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."
I think it's unhelpful if folks who (for example) like their TV to be set to an even number talk about 'their OCD'. Or people who like things to be neat and tidy. Similarly for ADHD, the verbiage is: 'interferes with functioning or development/there is clear evidence that the symptoms interfere with, or reduce the quality of, social, academic, or occupational functioning.' Or ASD, where it's defined as 'caus[ing] clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning.'